Backers of I-2066 argue the opposite, contending that if voters reject the measure, energy bills will go up. 

In its report, Climate Solutions examined research conducted earlier this year by Synapse Energy Economics, which found that I-2066 could raise consumer utility gas bills in Washington by $150 or more per year by 2035 and double them by 2050.

Climate Solutions’ argument suggests that with gas use already in decline in the state, and more people choosing electric appliances, that leaves fewer gas customers who will have to pay higher monthly energy bills to maintain a gas system.

“Allowing natural gas utilities to manage and plan for transition costs effectively will mitigate future risks and costs for natural gas customers,” said William Gehrke, senior technical analyst at NW Energy Coalition.

Backers of 2066 say voting to pass I-2066 is the best way to prevent higher energy costs now and in the future.

“Opponents of energy choice are desperately spreading misinformation to defeat I-2066 and reduce access to low-cost, reliable natural gas,” said Building Industry Association of Washington Executive Vice President Greg Lane. “We encourage voters to look at the facts and vote yes on I-2066 to preserve natural gas as a less expensive, more reliable energy choice.”

BIAW notes that according to an Oct. 17 report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, electricity costs more than three times as much as natural gas.

I-2066 is a response to House Bill 1589, which passed this legislative session and was signed into law by Gov. Jay Inslee. It allows Puget Sound Energy, which serves more than 500,000 retail natural gas customers, to start planning how to move away from natural gas.

The Center Square reached out to a few other utility providers in the state for comment on I-2066.

Spokane-based Avista Utilities serves more than 250,000 customers in eastern Washington. In its four-state service territory, Avista provides electricity to nearly 418,000 customers and natural gas to about 382,000 customers.

“We appreciate the intentions and objectives of Initiative 2066,” Avista spokesperson Annie Gannon emailed The Center Square. “For proponents of this initiative, the freedom to select energy options that align with individual preferences is crucial. We share this sentiment.”

Gannon explained the company’s reasoning.

“Avista remains steadfast in our commitment to actively pursue a reduced-carbon energy future, and Washington and Oregon state laws expect us to achieve significant emission reductions over time,” she said. “We believe it’s critical to strike a balance between environmental stewardship and maintaining energy delivery that is both affordable and reliable for our customers, particularly in the colder months.  Achieving that balance can be difficult if state laws don’t provide the necessary flexibility.”

She suggested that a bipartisan energy policy moving forward is the best approach.

“Such a policy would ensure our ability to provide customers with dependable and affordable energy into the future while also reducing emissions,” Gannon said. “Regardless of whether the voters approve or reject I-2066, we look forward to continuing our engagement on this important issue with the legislature and interested stakeholders, always keeping the needs and interests of our customers at the forefront of our approach.”

The Center Square also reached out to a few other providers.

Snohomish County PUD declined to comment, saying it doesn’t take a position on ballot initiatives, and Tacoma Public Utilities did not respond to a request for comment.